The significance of the principle of Separation of Powers to national development featured prominently at the 2004 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Meeting and Delegates� Conference held recently in Abuja. In a speech read on his behalf by Justice Salihu Belgore, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, hinged the nation�s development on the need to allow each arm of government to function in accordance with the principles of Separation of Powers. The CJN said unless each of the three arms of government (executive, legislature and judiciary) is able to work unhindered and not dictated to by another, the nation�s development might be hampered. The immediate past NBA President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, who also spoke at the forum, reportedly accused state governors and Houses of Assembly nationwide of meddling with the affairs of the judiciary in their states, especially the offices of Chief Judges. Olanipekun also warned of the possible dire consequences (to the rule of law and justice) if the judiciary is made subservient to the other arms of government.
Though the 1999 Constitution (Sections 4-6 and other provisions) clearly vests the state powers in the three arms of government, and while they ought to cooperate in the interest of smooth and good governance, practical experience since the return of democratic rule in 1999 strongly suggests the non-observation of the principle of Separation of Powers, particularly at the federal and state levels. There, indeed, seems to be little or no difference in the arbitrary manner state power is wielded today from what obtained under military rule.
For reasons that are obviously traceable to the executive�s enormous power of patronage, both the National Assembly and their counterparts in the states have carried on as if they are statutory rubber-stamps for the executive, even when the latter takes glaring arbitrary decisions. That the executive determines the occupants of principal offices and their removal in both the federal and state legislature since 1999 is common knowledge.
It is on record that the executive had flagrantly ignored laws, including Appropriation Acts duly passed by the National Assembly, without being punished. During President Obasanjo�s first term in office, for example, both houses of the National Assembly passed the amended ICPC bill into law 44 days after the President�s refusal to sign same. The then Attorney-General and Justice Minister, Chief Kanu Agabi, had voiced the executive�s non-recognition of the law. That position was maintained until 2003, when a new National Assembly with a fresh leadership was inaugurated.
The scandalous Electoral Act 2001 fraud involving members of the executive and the National Assembly is another case. Recently, the Senate merely complained about the unconstitutional, extra-budgetary loan worth $45 million, which the executive granted to Ghana and Sao Tome, and went ahead to approve the loan.
The unbearable pressure brought to bear on the trial of the suspects of slain Justice Minister, Chief Bola Ige, especially the public disclosure by one of the trial judges that handled the matter, Justice Moshood Abass, that he withdrew from the case because of pressure from unexpected quarters, testifies to the constraints on the judiciary�s independence and, indeed, credibility. Related to this is the curious and conflicting court verdicts that trailed the July 10, 2003 abduction of Dr. Chris Ngige, the governor of Anambra State, and the ongoing Ibori identification trial. The National Judicial Council, however, deserves commendation for its efforts to bring corrupt judges to book.
The 1999 Constitution must have envisaged such fear as expressed by Uwais, when, in Section 84, it charged the remuneration of judges, among others, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Yet, funds meant for the judiciary are either delayed or grossly inadequate, as judges are owed salaries and allowances, while their working conditions and environment are hardly dignifying. The nation can only ignore Justice Uwais� observation at its own peril. The immediate challenge before the legislature and the judiciary, however, is to invoke their constitutional powers against brazen executive recklessness and manipulative influence.
